Hovering with 4 adults 700 lbs. on 2 seat turbocharged Rotorway at 2500 ft. without straining the helicopter more than at sea-level with max. allowed power du to my own designed turbocharged intercooled altitude compensation system.

Please watch my video with the incredible performance:

Title of video : Arthur hovers with 4 adults on his 2 seat turbo Rotorway helicopter

I wasn't born yesterday. How heavy, how high? What's a good book prediction for comparison?Four small skinny guys in jackets (cold, maybe?) and 22 minutes of fuel is one thing, and I can replicate that...

Hi Wally , The TTOW was 1750 lbs. including fuel , the crews weight,skinny ore not is 700 lbs. the elevation was 2500 ft.With what 2 seater helicopter would you like to compare it with ?Have I missed any modern piston engine helicopter regarding performance on my spread sheet ?

Attached Files

Those "informed pilots" look like two kids hanging on to the side of the helicopter with no harness, their hand a few inches from the mast and a foot beneath the rotor, to prove what? If you're doing a performance test, why wouldn't you use ballast such as water or other disposable load?

Four people in a two-seat helicopter for what purpose, exactly?

The first thing that came to mind was that this is a demonstration of stupidity.

Those "informed pilots" look like two kids hanging on to the side of the helicopter with no harness, their hand a few inches from the mast and a foot beneath the rotor, to prove what? If you're doing a performance test, why wouldn't you use ballast such as water or other disposable load?

Four people in a two-seat helicopter for what purpose, exactly?

The first thing that came to mind was that this is a demonstration of stupidity.

Hi Avbug

It is a no brainer to make that test with water ballast first, (total crew weight 700 lbs.) the only problem is nobody would belief it or watch such a video.

The video clearly demonstrate only, the safety margin built in to the 2 seat helicopter.

Did you actually study my attached performance spread sheet?

I know it is hard to believe my turbo Rotorway is on top of all piston engine helicopters regarding hover performance. All verified on my previous videos.

Common guys we are all pilots and love our machines , there is no need to criticise somebody’s success .

It is a no brainer to make that test with water ballast first, (total crew weight 700 lbs.) the only problem is nobody would belief it or watch such a video.

The video clearly demonstrate only, the safety margin built in to the 2 seat helicopter.

Did you actually study my attached performance spread sheet?

I know it is hard to believe my turbo Rotorway is on top of all piston engine helicopters regarding hover performance. All verified on my previous videos.

Common guys we are all pilots and love our machines , there is no need to criticise somebody’s success .

OP/Sir:

So you want people to notice that you have achieved performance and at the same time have experienced professionals disregard standard industry practices for determining

performance, weight and balance, ballast operations?

Do you verify what the max designed skid loading was?

As a member of the US Helicopter Safety Team, many of my peers have discussed these kinds of videos and the example and mind set it shows. My USHST peers have written a Safety Bulletin about showing the correct example.

It is a no brainer to make that test with water ballast first, (total crew weight 700 lbs.) the only problem is nobody would belief it or watch such a video.

The video clearly demonstrate only, the safety margin built in to the 2 seat helicopter.

Did you actually study my attached performance spread sheet?

I know it is hard to believe my turbo Rotorway is on top of all piston engine helicopters regarding hover performance. All verified on my previous videos.

Common guys we are all pilots and love our machines , there is no need to criticise somebody’s success .

Your concern then, wasn't safety, wasn't research, wasn't aeronautical science, but being seen; you put lives in danger and acted stupidly so that people would be impressed. That makes your act all the more pointless.

Putting four people in a two seat helicopter isn't success. It's stupidity and bad judgement.

What is the point of exceeding aircraft limitations or established parameters in the first place?

I understand the benefit of a turbo charger to achieve sea level power at altitude. But is this really sea level performance? Even with minimal amount of fuel you must have still overloaded the A/C by around 200lbs...

How do you make sure you are not over-torqueing the living crap out of it?

I understand the benefit of a turbo charger to achieve sea level power at altitude. But is this really sea level performance? Even with minimal amount of fuel you must have still overloaded the A/C by around 200lbs...How do you make sure you are not over-torqueing the living crap out of it?

Rotorway manufacturer specification, is at sea level maximum boost 34 inch. on their supercharged version ,which is a very low boost , that produces the maximum torque .

So at sea level, with standard pressure and temperature, theoretically any Rotorway could lift that weight with maximum allowed boost and power . The helicopter is designed for that torque as Rotorway once wanted to built a 4 seat helicopter .

Rotorway has de- rated the max. take off weight to have some safety margin left in flight and for higher altitude .

Now with my own designed turbo altitude compensation system , using the same maximum 34 inch boost or torque , I wanted to demonstrate that safety margin is also available at much higher altitude with my turbo system, as proven in all my previous videos .

Rotorway has announced to bring out their own turbo system , most probably inspired by my success .They have discontinued the supercharged version .

I hope you are satisfied with my answer .

I do admit my water ballast test should have been good enough for me to prove it , but would you have believed it ?

I do admit my water ballast test should have been good enough for me to prove it , but would you have believed it ?

Regards Arthur

I wouldn't have cared, so belief or disbelief would be irrelevant, but you'd at least have operated under the guise of an intelligent, safe scientific approach to your efforts. In this case, you put lives at risk, operated in an unprofessional and unsafe manner, and made your work more of a spectacle than a credible effort, all for a photo opportunity. Perhaps it's true that a smoking hole in the ground is a small price to pay for a cool picture.